@ Russell: My piece was, and was intended to be …

Comment on 1968, when revolution was everybody’s business by Charlie Carter.

@ Russell: My piece was, and was intended to be a personal memoir.
Erwin said keep it tight. I tried to.
I concentrated on Aboriginal Rights, anti war and conscription, the environment, and sexual liberation.
Of course I was aware of, and involved in the peace and love thing to some extent, but it was not a priority.
Erwin chose to illustrate the piece with a picture of the Beatles. That was not my decision, or my focus.
Your initial comment included “Love is All You Need humanist fairy story”.
I understand that you have a religious perspective, and were responding to my “supernatural fairy story” comment.
But the love is all you need story was not in my piece. I consider that tendentious.
Also you wrote “You didn’t mention the Vietnam War either”.
I wrote two paragraphs on the Vietnam war.
You have sprayed your comments over a wide field, and seem to attribute everything you dislike to
“the moral relativism of the front line revolutionaries”.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but our stance that conscription was wrong, and that the Vietnam war was immoral, geopolitically stupid, and based on lies was not relativism.
I also had to register for the ballot for National Service.
The Vietnam war was lost.
The Dominos have not fallen.
The “yellow peril” has not overrun Australia.
I could go on.
But, you say,”I’m more interested in postmodern analysis of that legacy”.
Go for it, but leave me out.

Charlie Carter Also Commented

1968, when revolution was everybody’s business
@ Russell Guy. 2/2 of us found your double negative confusing.
It was me that used the term double negative not John.
Your contention: “You didn’t mention The Beatles, but the activism of the period was as much based on their songs as anything else” is ludicrous.
“Love and peace, two key words in the activist agenda.”
Er, not in my experience of the time. They may have been mantras of the flower fringe, but those of us on the front line were a bit more realistic.
“I’m not trying to buy an argument.”
Yes, Russell you are, and hanging it on a tendentious misrepresentation of of my position.
“Abortion (on demand) … and … a legacy of seven days per week take away alcohol among its liberal attitude to social policy.
I said nothing about either, but I suggest that the attempted prohibition of both produced worse outcomes.
My positions on the social and political issues of the time were based on respect for human rights, and a realistic analysis of geopolitics.
“American exceptionalism” is bullshit.
The “domino theory” was bullshit.
Sergeant Peppers was a favourite album of mine at the time, but Dylan, Redgum, Chisel, and Bogle were more to the point.


1968, when revolution was everybody’s business
I appreciate your interest Russell, but the double negative confuses your meaning, and I’m not sure what it is.
I didn’t mention the Beatles, and the activism of the period was not based on Beatles songs.
My humanism is based on scientific methodology and rational thought.


Recent Comments by Charlie Carter

Is Adam Giles making a bid for top land council job?
Hal, David Ross started working at CLC in 1979.
He has been Director/CEO for 20 years.
I am not sure of his exact age, but it would seem that he is due for retirement.
Giles’ leadership and management abilities are on record for all to see with his brilliant success as Chief Minister of the NT.


Government-made dust bowl: What comes next
Mr Stubbin is no doubt from Darwin.
Perhaps no one has told him that we do not have a “rainy season” in the Centre?


Rain: Yesss!
Another 12mm yesterday. Over an inch in total. Certainly not drought breaking, but will green things up a bit.
By the way Alex, I think the Indian ocean dipole perhaps has more effect on Central Australia than El Nino, particularly with summer rain.


Rain: Yesss!
Measured 14mm in Chewings St.
Overflowed the gutters and swamped the garden.
Lovely to hear the thunder and rain.
And the petrichor!


Anzac Precinct: govt declines to play ball, confusion reigns
Erwin, at this point one has to ask “cui bono” (who benefits?)
It is hard to imagine that a Government would behave in such a pig-headed, stupid, financially irresponsible way (well, maybe not so hard).
So I have to ask, what don’t we know about their motives for this?
Surely it can’t be the nonsense of “rejuvenating the north end of the mall”.
What else is at play here?


Be Sociable, Share!